About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 4
MSNBCW 3
CNNW 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 22
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
could label the republicans or start with ronald reagan, cut taxes, big chunk toss the wealthy and then borrow the money to pay the bills. that's how you get debt, $2 trillion, $3 trillion, $4 trillion. ronald reagan had this concept, starve the beast. he said the way we're going to kill social security and medicare and medicaid, we're at right now, is to make this government's debt so big that we can't afford them. >> guest: absolutely. one second, sir. ronald reagan was never in support of killing any of those programs. i mean, that is hyperbole. >> caller: he wanted to tax on the wealthy. let me finish, please, you get -- >> guest: he cut taxes across the board, sir, on everybody. >> caller: start to filibuster because i'm going to hammer you with a question. he lored the tax on the wealthy from 70 down to 40, and that amounted over the 30 years trillions and trillions of dollars being given away to the wealthy. do you think there's a correlation between us being trillions and trillions of dollars in the hole and the fact we gave trillions and trillions of dollars away to th
. >> let me quote dick cheney, who said ronald reagan taught us that deficits do not matter. dick cheney was wrong. he was wrong then and now. of course deficits matter, but any one of you who supported the bush plans has no right to speak. i helped bill clinton balance the budget and build a surplus. why? because we had good economic times. in good economic times, you pay down the deficit, but reagan and bush did not, and in bad you have to stimulate in the near term, as thank god president obama is doing. we democrats will balance the budget once again. >> paul, which is more important to america's pursuit of happiness -- which is more dangerous, excuse me, than a 357 magnum -- >> in my home you would find 17 guns and no cans of soda pop. i have the right wing position on the giant drink soda thing. i do not like the idea, and i think bloomberg is a fine man, but i do not like government telling us what size to buy today. this one, i am with tucker and most of you. i have the right wing position on gun safety. i have the same position as ronald reagan, who was for a waiting period befo
to have come to washington to work in a very minor role for ronald reagan and some of us are proud to have supported the bush administration after 9/11 and fighting epimieses and the problem with the obama administration is not that it is too assertive. the problem is that we are retreating all around the world and unfortunately emboldening our enemies. if rand paul wants to run to the left of the obama administration he is tree to ned ahat in the republican minute. maybe this is more is support for that than i think but i doubt there really is. >> chris: nina, the president thinks bringing the troops home not in a rush but steadily and eventually is a winning message in the last campaign, frankly not talking about open-ended commitments. does the gop need to recognize and respond to a war weariness in the country? >> i think the drone issue and war we areness are two totally different issues. rand paul's war and drones is a war on a pretty successful fight against terrorism right now. i'm not sure where that gets us. i agree with bill that the gop doesn't lose by being a strong party of n
. other presidents didn't come in their first term, ronald reagan never came as president, but at the same time they expected him to come, especially after he went to cairo in 2009. can he reach on the floor his head to the israeli people. >> there are three interesting events. king hussein of jordan, almost an enemy, and the friendly bill clinton coming to israel and winning the hearts of israelis instantly, although their positions were very critical of israeli policy, definitely is a d saddat. the trick for president obama now, and i think this is exactly what he's trying to do. he says trying to clinton-ize himself, reach out and give the israelis the hug they did not get for four years. if this works, that lays the foundation for a renewed peace process, then he can come with the difficult stuff and say to israelis, i love you so much, i care for you, i stand by you, therefore you must act now and take some risks in order to improve your position, dealing with occupation and see the middle east as it is. >>> and the middle east as it is, you understand this region so well, post-arab s
, ronald reagan. the hero of the conservatives, reagan never went to israel as president. and this president has acted in ways that you've talked about with the ten meetings of netanyahu, what more adequate speech can he with deal with as a collective pursuit of peace than a speech in cairo, jim? >> i mean, i think it's more than reagan, reverend. i think probably a majority of american presidents since eisenhower did not trek to israel. >> he's the hero so certainly -- >> i agree. >> something to note. >> i agree. and as a young senator during that short period of time that he was representing the state of illinois, obama, you know, went to israel. for sure joy is right on the mark about the bug up their butts that a lot of folks have about the cairo speech. but the context there was one we can forget. it's in which a new administration firmly believed, whether you agree with them or not, that its predecessor, george w. bush, had been fighting essentially a war on islam. that was the view on the arab street and the obama folks went out very directly in cairo in 2009 to r
of each other to vote for ronald reagan because he crafted a beautiful economic message that showed that capitolism was for everybody. we're not doing that. we need an economic message that does those things. the republicans can't -- people will say, well the democrats start out with 230 electoral votes, why don't you become a pro-choice party or pro-gay marriage, and there are people who think about these things strategically. you lose the base. we can't afford to lose the southern base. >> michael: jack, that's like saying in the 50s well you're a preschool integration party, well, we don't want to do that because we'll lose our base. there has to be a point where you go along with the country? >> yes, and no. the 50s -- the electoral map was very different in the 50s. the republicans today are very dependent on a southern base. in the 50s the map was much more torn up. now you have regional parties competing. what you have are two parties that play exclusively in certain regions. the republicans are dependent on a base so it's much harder to do that now than in
my list. >> john: i guess ronald reagan is also off her list because reagan gave amnesty. are you surprised that ann coulter is fickle in they they are affection? >> i am. i trust everything that comes out of her. there is no one more abhor rent than she is. i can't believe they give her a platform. she gets under my nerves. >> john: were you surprised to see ann coulter to a flip flop on her savior and the most electable republican. >> she's rich for a reason. she's a salacious factory. an internet mean factory. that's why she's the best seller. >> you know i talk to joy behar about this a lot. she said she's a joke. but she's evil. >> john: but she talks evil. let's say that ann coulter comes to jesus and said we need to have love and respect for all of our human beings despite our differences. she would lose fans overnight. >> right she's not really for that party. she's not for anybody. she's for herself. she started this speech talking about her books and how many best sellers she has. >> john: hari wins the debate. what are they looking for? chris christie was one of the man
of ronald reagan and stop conservatism and just go back to the good old truth that is worked back then, that reagan laid for the incredible ground work of the economy in the 1980's and 1990's. clinton helped to some extent, ut then he created and repealed glass-steagall, and everybody blames it on george bush. the conservatives who didn't do much for the letter peace, we tried to expand under karl rove, the voting process, and giving more to hispanic community, and we didn't get one increase in vote in that eight-year period so. what makes you think that we're going to give amnesty and all the set get a bunch of votes? it's fraud, and it's another really ploy by the democratic party to keep promising and benefits to everybody who will vote for them no matter what. scommoip we're going to talk about immigration in our next segment of the "washington journal" today. but we still have about five minutes left in this segment, if you want to call in to give us your take on this growth and opportunities report that was released today, or if you think hanges in the republican debates would ha
for ronald reagan. he compromised on everything. we had a democratic house with a huge majority. he had to. the real divided government can work. ronald reagan proved it could work. clinton proved it could work. those are guys who got huge legislation enacted. the reagan economic plan, immigration reform, social security reform -- here is the thing -- the president has got to lead. for four years we have had a president was not willing to take that kind of leadership to make congress work. i hope he will this term. >> i would say this is not the season -- compromise is not in the air. but i think that the republicans in the house realize it is in their political interest to turn the heat down and not have a food fight every few weeks for the american public. what i think is in the air and is happening is people from the far left and the far right are starting to come together against institutions and the governing parties, and you will see more of that. you saw it last week with the drones. you will see it with the banks on wall street. businesses that are impacted by the federal governmen
ronald reagan. i saw them when i went to the saddam museum in baghdad. the neocons came to power with an agenda for regime change in iraq. on 9/11 they were salivating. the general of the joint chiefs at the time told me rumsfeld, wolfowitz, all these guys started iraq, iraq, iraq, at the first meeting after 9/11. the fact is these guys had a mission to try to redraw the maps of the middle east. that's a fact. and dick cheney did not invent the idea of the executive branch being a dictatorship when it comes to foreign policy in america. unfortunately president obama has continued some of the things cheney, rumsfeld and these guys laid the groundwork for earlier. my god, cheney headed up halliburton for the 1990s. he had oil on the mind all the time. the irony is the u.s. isn't winning the oil in iraq. these guys failed at their own game, the neocons. >> mike, as you look forward at iraq's, from iraq's current position into the future, what are your expectations for that nation? >> it's a great question, martin. you know, it's the crucial question, as we think about this day. i wa
in your book, that in the ronald reagan, 1984 debate. tell us what happened. >> well, they had, reagan had a bad first debate and people were saying that he was confused and say that he was too old. and roger was brought in as a kind of a debate counselor for reagan and he told reagan, look, you're the president. you've got -- obviously you don't need to impress people with facts and figures, you need to be yourself. and i found out later, as i worked on this book for fox and his advice to everybody when they go on the air is to be themselves. and reagan took the advice and did very well in the second debate. >> greta: and of course, the famous line out of that second debate about mondale's age, at least, that's roger's line? >> i don't think it's roger's line, but everybody around reagan was afraid to mention to him that people thought he was too old and roger, who is not afraid of much told reagan directly, you have to come up with something that will address the concern about your age. and reagan came up with that, with that line. >> greta: which was that he wasn't going to make age an
. when ronald reagan did it we had 7% growth in one year and that is the bold leadership we need but it's not a new principle. we don't have to reinvent ourselves in that way but we have to stand on principle and unless you stand for something people are not motivated to vote for you. >> chris: let's talk about what you stand about, immigration. you came out with your ideas for a comprehensive plan this week and since then you are taking fire from both the right and the left. you call your plan for creating a legal status. not citizenship, but a legal status, for the 11 million folks who are already here, illegal immigrants who are here but taking fire from the right because you oppose the e-verify system which would make it easier for employers to check whether their workers are in fact legal or illegal. why would you oppose that? >> that's not the main part of my plan. the main part is trust but verify, we have to have border security and conservatives always wanted border security before we had immigration reform and the amendment i'll add to the bipartisan plan will ensure that ther
on the corporate side from 46% down to 34%. that was 1986. it was done in a bipartisan way. with ronald reagan and tip o'neill. and the idea at that time was to take our tax rate down to the point where it was competitive, meaning it was below the average of our global competitors. in the intervening 2 1/2 decad decades, guess what's happened? every single country of the developed world, the so-called oecd countries, our global trading competitors, every single one of them have gone in and reform theied their tax cod. they've lowered their rates but they've also made their code more competitive. every single country except us. so america's been on the sidelines while other countries have moved quickly to improve their tax code. why? because they want investment, they want the jobs. and what's happened is, sure enough, they're more competitive, capital is now flowing outside of this country, we're losing headquarters, we're in a situation where if there's a foreign acquisition to be made, those companies in foreign countries have an advantage because they have a more competitive tax code. our t
't add up long term. they agree with that much as president ronald reagan and speaker tip o'neill agreed with the very same notion back in 1982 and 1983. the numbers weren't adding up long term for social security, and something had to be done. and some painful decisions had to be made in the early 1980's. and to this day we thank god for president ronald reagan and speaker tip o'neill for having the bipartisan courage to do the tough things to make the tough decisions and adjust an important program so that social security has been saved for the past three decades. we need that kind of statesmanship out of the white house today. frankly, we need that kind of leadership out of the white house. you know, we're calling for bipartisan action. i think it's worth noting -- and it pains me to say this -- for the first time in 92 years we are considering a budget without seeing a plan from the president of the united states. he announced just last week that he was just going to wait in sending us his budget plan. it will be two months late by the time it arrives, according to the president's ow
, hunger has been getting worse since the presidency of ronald reagan. we almost eradicated hunger in america in the late 1970's, but hunger has been getting steadily worse in the decades since. but the great recession, the worst economic period we've faced since the great depression, resulted in millions more people hungry. millions of people who had to turn to snap as the safety net that prevented them from going without word altogether. now, recognizing that hunger is a real problem and we need to end hunger now, i would hope that any budget proposed in this congress would at the very least do no harm for those that are struggling the most in our economy. yet, the ryan budget slashes snap once again. this should come as no surprise. this is basically the same budget he's introduced over the past few years and the same budget that voters have rejected over again and again. yes, mr. speaker, this is the same budget that turns medicare into a voucher, the same budget that repeals the affordable care act and the same budget that gives even more tax breaks to the wealthiest americans
the definition. but what i'd say -- i'd say what we have now is de facto amnesty. jon: yeah, the fact is ronald reagan signed the legislation in the mid '80s that was going to fix the immigration problem once and for all, and here we are 20 years lateerer, more than that, with, you know, 11 and 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. >> well, those events of the '80s still haunt the immigration debate today. an amnesty was given out, the border was not secured, and in the 2000s, especially under the administration of george push, there was a huge increase in the number of illegal immigrants. the one thing republicans do agree on is they need to do something about this. even the ones who think border security only is the way to go, they all feel they have to do something about it. the problem just cannot continue to exist as it has for the last decade. jon: well, and the speeches, maybe the presidential campaign speeches continue. we'll see how long it takes to get some legislative language out there. byron york, thank you. >> thank you, jon. jenna: well, a major american city dealing wit
, remember what happened in 1986, ronald reagan had immigration reform, they call it amnesty and we had people pouring across the porous border. that cannot happen again. then republicans have to try to figure out a way to spread that needle. are they offering citizenship, even though it's a long pass, or are they just going to offer some kind of legal status in this country? rand paul spoke the other day. he did not use the worth citizenship, though he clearly support immigration reform. that's going to be a challenge for republicans to figure out where they're going to be on the question of citizenship. >> just don't call it amnesty. because the base hates that word. >> oh, they do. they now say reagan provided that. >> he did. >> yes. >> thanks very much, gloria. >>> when we come back, it's taken more than 35 years, but a pioneering spacecraft has now gone beyond the solar system. ♪ (train horn) vo: wherever our trains go, the economy comes to life. norfolk southern. one line, infinite possibilities. great first gig! let's go! party! awwwww... arigato! we are outta here! party.....
. when ronald reagan came in and we didn't have any money, we watched every dime we spent. former deputy attorney general of the united states, larry thompson of atlanta, and i was united states attorney in alabama, we were such dyed in the wool reaganauts, when we went to a conference, we roomed together, separate beds. we thought it was cheaper. it would save money for the taxpayers. this kind of mentality needs to get back into what we are doing. i would just say that it's time for us to confront it. the vision of the members of this side and i think a lot of members of that side is not that far apart. i want to be clear about a couple of things. this budget needs to be put on a path to balance. it can be done without cutting spending in any dramatic way. all you have to do is reduce the rate of growth in spending. the budget will balance in ten years. we need to do that. we need to plan to do that. as i explained before, the debt is already pulling down economic growth in america. it's pulling down the growth that we have. the debt has reached such a level, 104% of g.d.p., our gross
of ronald reagan that the number one goal of the federal government is to have an balanced budget as if every family has an balanced budget. i'm in pretty good shape but i owe a lot of money too. i have a mortgage here and a mortgage in california and a car debt. >> over current spending levels over the next ten years, you are talking a decade of above 95% debt to gop issue. >> bill: but the deficit is coming down? >> sure. but economists will tell you that the debt is the worry not the deficit. >> wouldn't they also say that's not the biggest problem we face? we're trying to stimulate ourselves out of the -- >> bill: yes, but john boehner is talking about balancing the budget. he is not talking about getting rid of the national debt, he is talk about balancing the budget in ten years. and jobs it seems to me there are a lot of more important problems, and one of them is we still have almost 8% unemployment. i would say that would be getting people back to work priority number 1, and maybe you can't balance the budget until you do. >> uh-huh. one interesting
not -- ronald reagan and amnesty. raising taxes 11 times. do not mention the lincoln -- the things that they don't like. we're going to hear arguments like this from a prop 8 attorney. >> the institution of marriage and marriage laws are designed to attach mothers and fathers to each other and to the children that they may create and raise in the best environment. >> oh, boy. >> i couldn't hear that. >> stephanie: she was talking about -- i'm sorry. play it one more time. >> put your headphones on. >> i'm sorry. >> stephanie: i hated to aren't you than beautiful hair too. >> the institution of marriage and marriage laws are designed to attach mothers and fathers to each other and to the children that they may create and raise in the best environment. >> straights are automatically great parents. >> stephanie: you can read a story a day of some horrific story about straight parents. >> two things to say about that, that somehow marriage is only about raising children and there's plenty of straight couples that have no intention of raising any children at all. and in fact, if they do raise childre
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)